Skip to content

A Visit to the Negro Southern League Museum

Many of you may be aware of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City. But you might not know about the Negro Southern League Museum, which is in Birmingham, Alabama. I didn’t know about it myself until longtime reader Judy A told me that she’d recently been there during a trip to Birmingham. She took a lot of photos, some of which we’re going to look at today. All of the information and commentary that follows is from Judy, not from me. For all photos, you can click to enlarge.


Here’s Melvin Humes, a former NSL player, standing in front of the Newcastle Bombers jersey he designed. Lovely man, and very happy to share stories about the league and players with us and other visitors.

Here’s closer shot of the Bombers jersey. Mr. Hume was very pleased to point out that the “bombs” were baseballs. I didn’t get a chance to ask him what happened to the helmet.

This is a game-worn Birmingham Cardinals jersey and the MVP trophy for Jimmy Williams. Note that the cardinals face away from each other, instead of the inward-facing pose used by the St. Louis Cardinals.

One of my favorite exhibits at the museum was this game-worn jersey from Stockham Valves and Fittings (yes, that was their real name) of the Industrial League. I love that patch.

Lots of Satchel Paige stuff in the museum. This was his Paige All-Stars uni.

Another great feature of the museum: They had a hologram of Paige throwing four of his signature pitches. You can stand in the batter’s box and have him throw the Hesitation Pitch to you.

Here’s a look at Paige’s grips for several of his pitches.

Here’s a rare 1948 photo of Willie Mays as a Birmingham Black Baron. He was only 17 at the time.

The bat in this next photo is known as a “mushroom knob” bat.

This 1964 Birmingham Barons home jersey belonged to pitcher John “Blue Moon” Odom. He would later play for the Kansas City and Oakland A’s, whose uniforms were very similar to the what he’d worn with the Barons.


Great stuff — thanks, Judy. If you want to see more photos from Judy’s museum visit, look here.

• • • • •

Laces cases: Yesterday I mentioned that Giants punter Brad Wing had worn a hoodie under his uniform and that the hood’s laces were spilling out onto his jersey, but I couldn’t find a photo. Now, thanks to reader Chris Flinn, we have one (see above). And it turns out that Wing wasn’t the only Giant sporting this look: Reader Clint Richardson points out that defensive back Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie also had the exposed laces (as shown at right).

I’m finding myself very conflicted about this one. On the one hand, the laces are in team colors, so why not? On the other hand, they’re incredibly twee and look like something you’d see in a Pop Warner game. Then again, maybe the NFL could use a bit of Pop Warner-ization, just to make everyone seem more human, right?

Also, it’s one thing for a punter to have this look — we almost expect them to do things that aren’t quite up to code. But it feels different when a regular position player does it. Hmmmmm. What do you all think?

• • • • •

Collector’s Corner
By Brinke Guthrie

Never seen these Nike stickers before. I’d date them to the late 1970s, when Nike was getting firmly on its feet and ready to take some shots at Adidas. These look pretty quaint compared to their slick advertising today, huh?

Now for the rest of this week’s picks:

• How about this seat cushion from the “First Super Bowl Game.” Roman numerals and glitzy sponsorship logos were still to come.

• This ashtray for the inaugural Saints season in 1967 looks to be in perfect shape [and features the ever-awesome Sir Saint character ”” PL]. From the same season, this Saints helmet has the classic single-bar facemask.

• I always liked the distinctive graphics on this 1970s San Diego Chargers poster.

• Big Red Machine fans will want to check out this 1970s Reds belt buckle featuring their classic “Running Man” design.

• Fire Power! Flyer Power! Those were the twin mottos on this 1970s Philadelphia Flyers bumper sticker from the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company.

• Back in the 1960s, Bob Wetoska of the Chicago Bears had himself a sweet endorsement deal, appearing on ashtrays from the Tobin Stahr Company. He’ll tackle your packaging problems!

• Nice-looking set of posters here from the 1976 Canada Cup.

• Show all the guys you’re a member of the “Jr. Padres” with this promo patch from 7-Up.

• RC Cola saluted the 1977 NBA champion Trail Blazers with this commemorative glass.

• Ah, look at the cover of this 1969 Green Bay Packers press guide featuring running back Donny Anderson. Way back when, kids, they actually had stripes on the sleeves, and stripes on the socks. And note the depiction of the helmet lower right, with one lone green stripe.

• • • • •

Click to enlarge

Burning question: I was forced by circumstance to visit a 7-Eleven last night. As usual, they had the display of hot dogs and other sausages, with each row fronted by a black cylinder with white type explaining the product’s name and price. The cylinders spin on grill, just as the sausages do.

While the sausages generally seem pretty gross, I’ve always been somewhat captivated by the black cylinders. They’re a clever way to provide the product info, and there’s something mesmerizing about watching them spin. (I wish I’d shot video instead of taking a photo.)

Does anyone know the proper industry term for these black cylinders? Who invented them? Are they unique to 7-Eleven, or do other convenience chains use them?

Update: Reader/commenter Todd Cervini informs me that the cylinders are called roller thimbles. I must say, that’s an even better name than I’d dared to imagine. It’s even fun to say: Roller thimbles! Excellent.

• • • • •

Click to enlarge

KRC update: The latest installment of Key Ring Chronicles is about a key with a Little Mermaid sticker on it. Check it out here.

• • • • •

The Ticker
By Mike Chamernik

Baseball News: The Indians will wear red block-C caps with their navy alternates at home next season, replacing the Chief Wahoo hats that were paired with the jerseys this postseason. Jay Mantis produced this Photoshop of how it will look on the field. And no, this doesn’t mean the Wahoo cap is gone for good — it just won’t be worn with this jersey, at least at home. … The Orioles are putting down new sod at Camden Yards (from Andrew Cosentino). … The Rockies’ Twitter account had a little fun with uniform numbers. … Dan Freedman wrote a blog about how logo creep is becoming more prevalent in baseball. … The new collective bargaining agreement bans hazing rituals that involve dressing up as women or wearing offensive costumes.

NFL News: Color Rush game this Thursday between the Seahawks and Rams. Seattle will wear electric neon green (stadium workers got some of the color on them when painting the endzones). Los Angeles will wear blue and white helmets for the first time since the Fearsome Foursome era. Here’s a shot of some players practicing in the white-horned helmets (from Phil and Andrew Cosentino). … This Dunkin’ Donuts ad shows different styles of Jets and Giants helmets: The Jets one looks to be a mid-2000s Riddell standard, while the Giants one is a Riddell Revolution Speed. “Why not have the two helmets appear in the same style?” asks Perry Dornbush. … Speaking of ads, I saw a beer display that shows a Bears player wearing No. 0. … A headline on ESPN referred to the Rams as St. Louis yesterday. Also, a St. Louis TV station identified Rams COO Kevin Demoff as a “professional liar.” He told the city that the Rams were working to remain in town, but later he said the LA move was in the works for years (from Peter Kaszczak and Jim Walaitis). … About that, coach Jeff Fisher wasn’t technically fired. He was relieved of his duties. What are some of your favorite euphemisms, either in sports or otherwise? … Lake Travis High School in Texas uses NFL-style captaincy patches, but with five stars (the NFL version only goes up to four stars). The five stars may refer to their five state titles, which are also star-referenced on their helmets.

Hockey News: The Panthers will have a cool poster for Star Wars Night next Tuesday. … Flames LW Johnny Gaudreau trademarked the nickname “Johnny Hockey.” … For one of his classes at the University of Pittsburgh, John Baranowski created a mock lesson plan about the history of the Penguins. He included a section about uniforms. “Students these days need to be taught the importance of athletics aesthetics history! Even if I will likely never use this lesson plan,” John says. I don’t know much about the Pens, but I’d imagine that answering “Mario Lemieux” or “66” for every question would earn at least a D-minus on any quiz.

NBA News: The Pacers wore Indiana Bicentennial shirts during warmups yesterday (from Joel Whyrauch). … DeMar DeRozan admires teammate Kyle Lowry’s throwback Raptors hat. … The Bucks and Jägermeister have worked out their trademark spat. The liqueur maker said that “the filing was a formality to preserve our intellectual property rights” (from Jason Goede).

Soccer News: The airline company Emirates sponsors/advertises for the soccer club Benfica. A recent stunt involved having players run past an Emirates check-in desk on the pitch after pre-match warmups (from David Leiphart). … The Seattle Sounders won their first MLS Cup on Saturday night. Before this season, the league changed rules about how teams can commemorate titles with gold star patches: “The season following a team’s MLS Cup championship, they’ll sport the large gold star on their jersey as defending champions. The star will also include the year of their title. They’ll also sport a silver star under that for any previous MLS Cup championships, up to four silver stars total. If they don’t win another Cup title, then the following year, they’ll revert to a silver star for each win. But now, on the fifth win, all the silver stars disappear in favor of one gold star, without any year on it.” Here’s the policy in a chart (from Markus Kamp). … New logos for Bundesliga.

Grab Bag: Since taking over the Northern Iraq city of Mosul two years ago, the Islamic State has required all women to be completely covered up in public. That means long gowns, gloves, socks, niqabs covering the face, and now black cloths covering the eyes. … Japan’s Super Rugby franchise, the Sunwolves, unveiled home and away jerseys for the upcoming season (from Eric Bangeman). … Looks like John Glenn wore Red Ball Jets shoes with his NASA flight suit back in 1962. … New logo for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. … New logo for Better Homes & Gardens magazine. … Seward City, a small town in Alaska, has a new flag.

Comments (102)

    Thanks, Gregg, but I wasn’t referring to the grill — I was asking about the black cylinder with the product info. Do you know what *that* is called?

    I could see a regular position player having those hoodie strings yanked on by an opponent. Probably not a good idea.

    I’m terms of sewing jargon it looks more like a spool than a thimble. But who am I to question the hot dog industry?

    Interesting lesson plan, though the section about the hockey Pirates raised an eyebrow. One, it was the Pacific Coast Hockey Association, not League; two, the PCHA merged into the Western Canada Hockey League; after it dropped the “Canada” from the name in 1925, it was the WHL that folded in 1926; and finally, this is the first time I’ve heard the narrative about players being bought by the NHL as the eastern league “illegally stealing” them.

    That Seward city flag is a terrific design, and a good example of the kind of work high schools could get if they’d turn to students for logo design instead of ripping off pro teams. Also, I hope that at least one sports team in Seward, Alaska, has the nickname “Follies.”

    I wonder it Katelyn has ever seen the Chapel Hill (NC) city flag – there are a lot of similarities in the basic design.

    There are two similarities: the formal composition of a horizontal chevron, and the color sequence of blue, white, green. Which is to say, the flags of Seward and Chapel Hill are exactly as similar as the flags of Peru and Canada.

    The Seward flag is more similar in detail to the “North Star Flag” proposal for a new Minnesota state flag, and if that excellent but unadopted design influenced Katelyn at all, I say kudos to her.

    The opponent of the “0” jerseyed Bears player has his TV numbers facing forward, not outward.

    Have we already discussed how it’s (im)possible for TWA to give away a seat cushion in 1967 with “Super Bowl” on it, when that phrase wasn’t used until later?

    It wasn’t “officially” used until a couple of years later, but fans were calling it Super Bowl for the minute its existence was announced. Maybe the NFL kept hearing the term, then decided to adopt it. I never saw a date on the Lamar Hunt story; maybe it happened earlier than we all thought.

    Both CBS and NBC were using Super Bowl and Super Sunday in their advertising for that first game.

    The MNDOT logo seems like a mistake to me. The mn logo is an excellent design, but unifying state agency visuals under a single state logo is a bad idea in principle. State governments are large, diffuse, and complex. When you have a problem with a road, you can’t call the state of Minnesota in general to address it. You have to call the Department of Transportation. And the “edges” of most state agency authority are porous; you might be on land controlled by the Department of Natural Resources, but that sign that got knocked down and needs replacing might be a Department of Transportation deal. Having distinctive agency marks helps citizens identify the relevant authority and agency. Or say a state vehicle is driving dangerously, swerving in traffic of behaving suspiciously or whatever. If it has a distinctive agency logo on the door, citizens can easily report it. If every state vehicle just has a pretty “mn” logo on the side, there will be basically nothing an ordinary citizen can do. Call up the governor’s office and say, “Hey, there was a white state of Minnesota pickup nearly causing crashes on I-35 this morning”? Government requires accountability to the public, and a unified visual program across multiple agencies makes accountability harder.

    The public is better served when public agencies have distinctive logos.

    My reading is that the vehicles will still say “DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION” under the “mn”.

    We see this in New York City, where all city agencies adopted a unified brand a couple years ago. But that doesn’t mean that we confuse link with the link, or that they’re less accountable now because of it.

    It’s good that wahoo won’t be worn with the navy jerseys.

    But god that block c red hat doesn’t match whatsoever with the navy Indians Jersey, which uses outlines.

    I hope after wahoo is completely gone the Indians change everything to be consistent looking and match.

    Those Indians caps are miserable. They need a blue bill and white of silver trim around the “C”. Dark on dark or medium is a bad look.

    The cap isn’t dark on dark, it’s dark on bright. That’s an under-used cap format in MLB – recently it’s been a D-Backs signature – so it’s wide open for Cleveland to own it as a distinctive look. Which the team needs to make the transition away from Wahoo work. But I’m with you on the need for better contrast. Maybe an outline, the smaller the better, or a block shadow, assuming corresponding shadowing was added to the jersey. Even beveling or a Toronto-style interior line within the shape of the C would be an improvement.

    I believe the Indians had a similar cap – red with navy accented in silver wishbone “C” – in 1968-69. I liked it then, and I like the proposal now. However, I am not a fan of the navy blue jersey. That screams “softball” not major leagues. But then, I am not in the demographic that the MLB cares about away.

    I don’t know why they didn’t just go with the same navy with red bill hat but with a red block C. They sell them in their team shops and I think they look nice. At least the overall look would remain the same, just sans Chief Wahoo.


    How did this seat cushion say “First Super Bowl”, when this game wasn’t called the Super Bowl? It was called the “AFL-NFL World Championship Game”, and was retroactively call Super Bowl I.

    Threads in the comments section are automatically placed in chronological order. An original comment starts a “thread” and responses to a comment get placed directly below the comment in an indented manner.

    If you scroll up, the thread you are looking for was started by ‘Dumb Guy’ at 8:47 am:
    “Have we already discussed how it’s (im)possible for TWA to give away a seat cushion in 1967 with “Super Bowl” on it, when that phrase wasn’t used until later?”

    Fascinating and terrifying article about the ISIS dress code in Mosul. I nearly missed it since I typically quickly scan the Grab Bag section and don’t often click. Highly recommended reading for everyone – thanks for pointing it out Paul.

    I’m not sure if I like MLS’s star plan. On one side it’s good to have some uniformity unlike most of the world where everyone puts stars as they please (except Italy which is 1 star every ten championships) but on the other, it is sometimes fun to try to guess which championships every club/national team is referring to when you see the star on their crest

    Great stuff this morning.

    Always enjoy Collector’s Corner. Although the San Diego Chargers poster is a little too “Schoolhouse Rock” for my taste, the uni on the ’76 Canada Cup poster is one of my all-time favorites.

    My favorite euphemisms for the termination of a head coach are the classic “he wants to pursue other interests” and “he wants to spend more time with his family.”

    I loved those Red Ball Jets shoes. When I was a kid living in rural America, those were the only casual/gym shoes sold at our local sundry store. It was ran and owned by a guy named Chalky Wilson, which is a great name. I have never heard anybody named that before or since.

    Looks like next October will be a lot less pink – link

    Especially of note in that article:

    “The fundraising model has also been scrutinized. For every ‘pink item’ sold, the NFL receives a royalty from the merchandiser, which it donates in full to the ACS. The NFL does not profit off sales of this merchandise. But the royalty is a fraction of the wholesale price, which is a fraction of what consumers spend (about 12.5% of the retail price, according to a 2013 report by ESPN’s Darren Rovell).”

    So if the NFL could find a way to motivate half as many people as buy $100 worth of merchandise during Pinktober to just donate an average of $25 in cash to charity, it would have the same charitable impact but with greater economic efficiency. Probably not a difficult fundraising ask for an institution like the NFL. Heavily promoting a “donate ten bucks” text message number during a single Sunday’s games would probably do the trick.

    It sounds, to me, like the NFL hasn’t quite talked out how it’s going to market this new initiative yet and will do more planning during the off-season. They haven’t discussed if the color program will stay. It seems like it could get messy if they let each cause try and propagate its own color.

    My level of trust in the NFL is so low that, whenever they make a call like this, I can’t help but cast a leery eye. Were there other charities making a stink about not getting enough of the pie? A number of teams have their own charitable arm and maybe they felt the NFL’s Pinktober was overshadowing their own efforts. There are also some large organizations that are strongly affiliated with teams: The MACC Fund with the Packers & Aaron Rodgers, for instance. They fight childhood cancer, so you wonder if that would apply. I bet it will.

    It might be time for us to go back and watch the cult classic “Death to Smoochy” again. The “Parade of Hope” charity in that movie operated like the mob. 2017 and forward may see us living an a world with, ahem, less government oversight over large companies. I’m not trusting the NFL to actually do some good until they’re willing to take a real hit to their bottom line for something like player safety.

    I’m relieved to hear of the rule prohibiting female costumes as hazing in MLB. Glad I’ll no longer have to experience the yearly reminder that athletes of my favorite sport consider being like me to be the most humiliating and embarrassing thing in the world.

    I’ve never quite understood this perspective on this issue. I work in HR, a field I share with a lot of brilliant, hard working women – the fact that I would be embarrassed to wear a dress to the office doesn’t mean I respect them any less.

    I would also be embarrassed to wear a giant diaper and carry a blankie and bottle through the airport – that doesn’t mean I think babies/toddlers should feel humiliated and embarrassed.

    Lebron James was probably really embarrassed/humiliated when he had to wear a Cubs uniform after losing a bet to Dwyane Wade recently, I don’t think that means he thinks being a Cubs fan is embarrassing.

    I would also be embarrassed to wear a giant diaper and carry a blankie and bottle through the airport.

    Yes, because you don’t want to be infantilized. You think it’s humiliating to be viewed as less than a mature adult — and you’re right!

    But there’s nothing humiliating about a man being viewed as a woman — or there shouldn’t be. Using drag as a rite of humiliation just reinforces bogus gender roles and stereotypes, and sends the message that there’s something shameful about women and their attire (hence the humiliation). It’s great that MLB is putting a stop to it.

    There’s an easy test for this kind of thing: Just flip the roles. Would it be considered humiliating to force a woman to dress like a man? Of course not, because men’s attire connotes power, dignity, legitimacy, authority. But it’s considered humiliating to force men to dress like women. Think about that, and think about what it means, and you’ll see why it should stop.

    I think saying “men being forced to dress as women” is a little strong. Most players go along with it because it’s something most of them did when they were rookies. Most of them don’t believe there’s any malicious intent behind it. But there are guys who don’t go along with it.

    Now, the ticker item about women in Mosul, THAT’S being forced to dress a certain way.

    Come on, Jon — it’s called a hazing ritual because you’re forced to do it. No, not “forced” under penalty of death or imprisonment, like in Mosul, but forced by peer pressure and social ritual/custom. It’s not like they’d *choose* to do it if nobody made them do it, right? The fact that couple of players may opt out doesn’t change the fact that the almost everyone *does* go along with it.

    You can split linguistic hairs (I certainly know a thing or two about that myself), but the bottom line is still that this type of behavior reinforces bogus gender stereotypes that are bad news for all of us — men *and* women. We’re all better of without it.

    And just to be clear: The new rule doesn’t ban hazing rituals overall — you can still make the players dress up in superhero costumes and other ridiculous attire. But you can’t make them dress up as women. And that’s a good thing.

    Most players go along with it because it’s something most of them did when they were rookies.

    Which is why it’s to MLB’s credit that the league is stepping up & taking the decision out of the hands of individual players. Also, “we’re doing it because that’s what we’ve always done” is never a good rationale for doing anything.

    Most of them don’t believe there’s any malicious intent behind it.

    Intent, as is often (but not always) the case, is irrelevant here. The action perpetuates gender stereotypes, alienates some fans, and sends a message that it’s OK to haze (as long as it’s “just a joke”). Solid reasons for it to be prohibited.

    Now, the ticker item about women in Mosul, THAT’S being forced to dress a certain way.

    You are 100% correct. However, while you didn’t say so directly, your inclusion of this statement indicates that you’re setting up a comparison between MLB hazing & Islamic State-sponsored oppression of women. This isn’t an either/or situation. You can be opposed to both. Also, the “why get upset about A when B is so much worse” argument can be used to derail just about any effort. Small changes matter, and every minor improvement is a step in the right direction.

    “because you don’t want to be infantilized”
    Correct. I also don’t want to be feminized – at least not from a fashion/appearance standpoint. That doesn’t mean I think femininity is embarrassing or humiliating.

    I think it would be embarrassing to be viewed as a baby because I’m not a baby. The same way I don’t think being a women is embarrassing or worthy of humiliation, but it would be embarrassing for ME to be viewed as a woman, because I’m not.

    Flipping the roles in this situation is not very easy, because most male clothing styles/pieces are already co-utilized by women. I’m not even sure how a woman would go about dressing up as a man – would a woman’s reluctance to dress up as Ron Burgundy (mustache included) or Homer Simpson (beer gut included) be a sign of disrespect for men? I don’t think so.

    I’m not sure what you mean when you say “men’s attire connotes power, dignity, legitimacy, authority” – which attire is that exactly? The only ones I would associate with that are ones that women also wear, or wear some variation of (i.e., Police/service uniforms and business suits).

    Flipping the roles in this situation is not very easy, because most male clothing styles/pieces are already co-utilized by women.

    Yes — and why do you think that is? Because our society values male presentation above female presentation. Because some women choose to partake of and co-opt male presentation, because there’s power that comes with that.

    I’m not sure what you mean when you say “men’s attire connotes power, dignity, legitimacy, authority” — which attire is that exactly?

    Suits, neckties, dress shoes (that don’t have high heels), etc. There’s even terminology like “power suit,” “power tie,” etc.

    Actually, Paul, you just pointed out something before I could: Superhero costumes and other ridiculous attire. The whole point of the costumes is that they’re silly and ridiculous. That’s why you’d see players wearing a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader outfit and not women’s business attire. Whether or not it’s normally worn by a woman is irrelevant in this situation in my opinion. They’d look equally as silly dressed up as the Riddler or Mork from Ork.

    Honestly, they should just ban the hazing outright if they’re going to go down this road. It’s only a matter of time until dressing up a player in a crazy ’70s pimp outfit is equated with glorifying pimps and prostitution. Best to just nip it in the bud now.

    I’d be fine with banning hazing altogether. These types of rituals, whether engaged in by frats or teams, have a disturbing Lord of the Flies aspect to them.

    But to be clear: Making players dress up as Batman may be ridiculous, but it doesn’t demean Batman (because, um, there’s no such thing as Batman). But making players dress up as women does implicitly demean women, because it implies that they and their attire have a lesser social value.

    There may be no such thing as Batman, and Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders are real people, but I’m pretty sure most women would feel silly wearing that outfit. Because it’s a silly outfit.

    “Because our society values male presentation above female presentation.”

    This is a statement that’s easily and frequently thrown around, but I just don’t see it actually manifested in “society”, or at least not the society I live in.

    I don’t see people say the Queen of England looks less authoritative or powerful than the males wearing a suit next to her.
    A female Sportscenter host in a skirt and blouse isn’t any less professional than their suit wearing male co-host (except for when the skirt/top seem to edge more toward evening wear – something a male could be equally ‘guilty’ of).
    The appearance/dress of the (unfortunately few) women of the G20 summit doesn’t give them any less social value of their male counterparts.

    We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this topic.

    In the 22 years I played in the Majors, I never witnessed a rookie hazing as we’ve seen recently. Later on as a broadcaster, I saw it happen a couple of times. When the rookie players dressed in wigs and dresses boarded the bus, I was actually embarrassed for them. I believed then as I do now that there was a better way to welcome the future of the team.

    I recalled what happened in 1979 as a first-year member of the Dodgers. I was invited to dinner in New York by veteran Don Sutton, who was the longest-tenured player on the club. Also invited were a few other newly-acquired veteran players as well as all the rookies on the roster. It was Sutton who stood at the head of the table and told us how important each and every one of us was to the future success of this club and organization.

    The next day while thanking him again (Sut covered the entire check), I asked what prompted him to take all of us to dinner. He said he was welcomed by the veterans in his rookie year (1966) with a similar late-season dinner and this was his way of repaying them for their acceptance.

    Don believed that inclusion allowed him to successfully contribute to the Dodgers in his early years and put him on the road in what eventually led to a Hall of Fame career. When Don filed for free agency after the 1980 season and signed with Houston, a tradition that linked the Dodgers of Brooklyn through the team of 1980 ended.

    I tip my cap to Don Sutton and all of the other Dodger players who provided this tradition of positive reinforcement. It’s part of what made the Dodgers of the O”Malley era the class of baseball.

    As a Dodgers fan, I have immensely enjoyed Jerry Reuss as a pitcher, a broadcaster, and now as an occasional uni-watch commenter. I was going to say that if he wrote a book, I’d buy it. But then I did a search and realized he has so I will!

    I love Jerry Reuss’ perspective on this. Frankly, it should carry a lot of weight with fans who never played at his level and yet, for some reason, are inclined to defend hazing.

    As someone who has gone through a few initiation rituals that included hazing, I can say that my level of respect never increased for individuals who were the primary perpetrators of the hazing. Nor did I ever feel more welcomed into the group because of it. There is a better way to bond new members to an established organization, and Jerry has just highlighted it for us.

    i think it’s pretty simple – if you are ‘punishing’ someone (or, if you like, ’embarrassing’ someone) by making them dress as a woman, you are – by definition – saying that women are lesser than you are.

    Awesome answer Martina

    I have a couple of female relatives who are professional athletes and they’re as tough, as strong and work as hard as any male athlete.

    I’d love to live in a world where “plays like a girl” is properly seen as a compliment, not as a slur.

    Thanks for the museum pics, Judy. I’ve not heard of it before. My wife may attend a conference in Birmingham in June, and chances are excellent that I’ll be dragged along. This will give me something (air conditioned) to do while she’s doing her thing.

    I agree with Jon. Great stuff today from Judy. Thanks for sharing the photos and the narratives!

    I am intrigued by the Newcastle Bombers and Birmingham Cardinals jerseys, both of which demonstrate designs and fabrics that suggest they were made long after the original Negro Leagues had ceased operations. It looks like they’re associated with the still-existing link, which (not surprisingly) currently appears to be an integrated league. I’m curious to know how this league fits into the history of African-American baseball in the South. I guess I might just have to visit the museum someday to find out. Or maybe maybe you can report back next June, Jon. :-)

    It’s a pretty great little museum, and you can cover it all in about an hour. One of the highlights of Birmingham, as far as I saw.

    My two favourite euphemisms for firing:

    “leaving to spend more time with his/her family”

    “leaving to pursue other interests”

    @Mike2: Wouldn’t those actually be more apt when someone quits?

    My favorite euphemism for firing: “He is being made available to the industry.”

    Also another whopper I like, when discussing Obamacare with a left leaning friend, I spoke of the fine imposed for not getting healthcare insurance, and he told me it wasn’t a fine but rather a “fee for opting out.”

    Absolutely not – I’ve seen both of them used for firings. Making a firing sound like a mutual decision, or a quit, to try to protect the person from the stigma of being fired.

    If you’re a company, you’re already on the hook for severance, no reason to start adding grounds for defamation by talking about firing. Plus its the human thing to do – it helps maintain some basic human dignity for the person and helps them (or at least doesn’t hurt them) with the next job.

    Interesting. During the downturn in the late 00’s, working in a construction-industry company with about 80 employees, it was clearly evident what was going on when two or three folks were cleaning out their desks on a given day, no euphemisms to be made about it.

    On the other hand, when someone was moving on to another company or the like, there could be a going away party, farewell lunch, etc.

    You’re right Tom. For “downsizings” I agree, this is exactly how I’ve seen it handled as well. I’m thinking of executive positions.

    My wife went to Lake Travis and we go to their games sometimes. The stars have indeed increased as they win state titles. Not sure about the captains patches. Their uniform sets are basically copies of Texas Tech’s as both are made by Under Armor.

    Say the sausages look gross all you want, but the quarter pounder Big Bite / Big Gulp combo for $2 is always a good move. Then you load up the hot dog with ketchup, mustard, and pickles. Never let me down.

    I’ve seen people (and friends) buy a bag of Cheetos, open it and give it a few pumps of hot nacho cheese. Also, my buddy’s signature late-night meal was a chicken roller in a hot dog bun, covered in chili-cheese.

    Yeah! Where I’m at (Chicago) most stores allow patrons to prepare their own nachos.

    Paul, just wanted to let you know that yesterday I finally received the new Orioles Orange StripeRite Crew Socks II from American Trench. They are terrific!

    Ah, look at the cover of this 1969 link featuring running back Donny Anderson. Way back when, kids, they actually had stripes on the sleeves, and stripes on the socks. And note the depiction of the helmet lower right, with one lone green stripe.

    I think that helmet thing is just a coloring error – that particular rendering was used link with the correct Braisher stripe configuration. I’ve also seen that helmet drawing link, again with the correct stripes.

    I’d be interested to know if the maker of whatever hoodie that Wing and Rodgers-Cromartie are wearing compensates the players.
    I wouldn’t be surprised that that if they do, they suggest to the players to “let the drawstrings hang out from under your uniform.”


    re: hazing by wearing costumes etc.

    a) i find it absolutely fascinating that there’s some disagreement upthread on the ‘dressing as women’ item. i honestly can’t understand the counterargument on any level whatsoever, and can’t see how banning the practice can possibly be seen as a negative. weird.

    b) more interestingly, i can’t believe nobody suggested that the offensive costumes item might also include banning of real, worn-on-the-field, BFBS / camo / GFGS / etc. uniformz. THAT’s where they should focus their efforts, amirite?

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my case, I don’t equate a Wonder Woman, Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader, or Hooters girl costume as “dressing up like a woman” any more than I see wearing, say, a zoot suit as “dressing up like a man”. They’re chosen because they’re ridiculous costumes, and anyone would look silly in them. I don’t believe it’s a reflection on half the world’s population.

    And I’d rather just see hazing banned outright than have a checklist of what things are acceptable and what things are offensive. In my book, either it’s all ok or it’s all not ok. If they decide it’s all not ok, I’m fine with that.

    I’d be curious to see more about the various Dunkin Donuts sports team specials. With their app in Philadelphia, we get free medium hot or iced coffee the day after the Eagles win (…), and if you use the On the Go part of their app, you get a $0.50 medium hot or iced coffee on days with Flyers home games.

    Patriots have 87 cent medium coffee after they win at Dunkin (tied to Gronk being number 87).This is less good than prior seasons where it was a free coffee after a win. I always get a large so I haven’t taken advantage of the winning this year

    Is anyone else put off that there is a Block C on the Indians cap and cursive writing on the jersey? I dislike these 2 elements together. Stick to one font per uniform… or put a logo on the cap.

    Hmmm. So do you also object to cap/jersey combinations like those worn by the Mets, Dodgers, Twins, etc?

    Not saying you’re wrong, and not trying to play gotcha. Just trying to get a better feel for what you mean.

    Costumes. Love the theory of silly outfits for the rookies’ last road trip. In practice, feminine is not silly. Well intended rule to eliminate those, and I’ll be curious to see how the rule is enforced. But think about it, there are so many good costume ideas that aren’t going in drag. Cowboys, Jack Sparrows, superheroes, cartoon characters, farm animals…look at all that common ground. We can have all have a non-demeaning laugh.

    Great picture of John Glenn in Red Ball Jets! When I was in grade school in a small Washington town (early- to mid-1960’s) it was either Red Ball Jets or P.F. Flyers – until junior high, when we “graduated” to Chuck Taylors. (I was a P.F. Flyers guy.). Good memories…..

    The MLB commissioner’s statement about the value of having Under Armour on the front of the baseball jersey reminded me of that saying…

    “we know what the [MLB} is, we just trying to establish the price!”

    If I may add a different perspective to the hazing issue, it could simply be that we are all overthinking it quite a bit and that the reason it is seen as embarrassing for a man to wear women’s clothing is because such clothing is designed to fit and compliment the female form and not the male form.

    No matter who you are, if you’re made to go out in public wearing clothes that don’t flatter your body or show off more skin than you’re comfortable with, it’s going to be embarrassing for you.

    Yeah, it could be.

    Except that women are never hazed by being forced to wear ill-fitting men’s clothing.

    And men are never hazed by being forced to wear too-large or too-small men’s clothing.

    And I’ve yet to hear a hazed rookie say, “You know, I’d have no problem wearing this dress if it were just tailored a bit better. The way it pinches me here and is too loose over there — that’s the really humiliating part.”

    And, and, and….

    Women aren’t hazed by being forced to wear men’s clothes because a good-looking woman looks sexy in men’s clothes…

    On the other hand, even a good-looking man in great shape is going to look absurd in a dress and heels.

    Men and women are different, Paul. Observing this does not mean that you’re saying that women are inferior.

    a good-looking woman looks sexy in men’s clothes…

    Well, that’s what you happen to think. It’s interesting that you assert it as if it were a natural fact. And why is that? Is it actually a natural fact? Or is it a social construct that reflects our relative feelings about gender?

    It’s pretty obviously the latter. The flip side of that construct is that men are supposed to feel humiliated when they wear women’s clothing. It’s the same construct that has produced humiliating terms like “girly man,” “throw like a girl,” and lots of other terms that are designed to humiliate men by comparing them to women. It’s all bullshit and we shouldn’t be reinforcing it.

    Also, your assessment only refers to a “good-looking woman” (whatever that means to you). What about non-good-looking women? Do they look “sexy” (whatever that means to you) in men’s clothing? If not, then can they be hazed by being forced to wear men’s clothing? If so, then why does it never happen? If not, why not?

    Here’s a crazy thought: Maybe heterosexual male concepts of what’s sexy and good-looking — concepts that already drive a ridiculous amount of what goes on in this world — shouldn’t be driving this discussion. Maybe instead of thinking about what you find sexy and good-looking, you should think about what it means to a woman when she sees a depiction of her gender paraded around as a symbol of humiliation. That’s not “overthinking it,” as you suggested upthread. That’s just stripping the situation down to its core.

    They should just ban it all. They’re worried about offending women when they dress up. What about how the ballplayers feel? Do they not care if they feel ashamed?

    Two reasons I love this site: That holographic image of Satchel Paige pitching at you is the coolest thing; the head groundskeeper at Camden Yards is Nicole McFadyen. Good for her and good for the Orioles.

Comments are closed.